IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.10.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR W.A.No.3207 of 2025 S.Amutha .. Appellant Vs.

1. The Joint Director (Personnel)

Directorate of Government Examination DPI Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam Chennai – 600 006.

2. The District Education Officer Office of the District Education Officer Collectorate Campus, Nagapattinam.

3. The District Elementary Education Officer Office of the District Elementary Education Officer Collectorate Campus, Nagapattinam. .. Respondents Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, against the order made in W.P.No.25469 of 2025 dated 23.09.2025.

For the Appellant : Mr.P.Chandrasekaran For the Respondents : Mr.J.C.Durairaj Additional Government Pleader JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

The present intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 23.09.2025 made in W.P.No.25469 of 2025.

2. The appellant was the writ petitioner, who claims to have studied Higher Secondary Course, thereafter, Diploma in Teacher Education Course. She completed the said Course and has secured Diploma Certificate from the School where she studied, namely, S.B.G. Teacher Training School, Mutharasa Nallur, Trichy District, during the year 1990.

3. After having completed the Course, that is Diploma in Teacher Education Course, she had joined as a Teacher, that is Secondary Grade Teacher, in an aided School, called the Chidambaranar Middle School, Orathur, Nagapattinam, where, she has been continuously working. After several years of service in the said School, since she wanted to retire voluntarily, she needed the genuineness certificate, which she sought for, however, the same has been rejected vide the proceedings dated 27.06.2025 issued by the first respondent, stating that the Diploma Certificate, which was fixed as the qualification, under which strength only she secured the job and worked as a Teacher, itself is a bogus certificate, as the said certificate has not been issued by the Official respondents, that is the Department of Education.

4. Therefore, by the said order dated 27.06.2025, the first respondent has directed respondents 2 and 3 to initiate action against the writ petitioner/appellant, including action by setting the criminal law in motion, by filing a complaint before the concerned Police to enquire her.

5. Aggrieved over the said order, though the said writ petition was filed, the learned Writ Court, having considered the factual matrix, was pleased to dismiss the said writ petition, saying that, the proceedings dated 27.06.2025 is only a notice stage, where, enquiry alone has been contemplated against the appellant/writ petitioner and hence, this could be treated only as a premature writ petition and with regard to the disputed facts of question, the Writ Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could not go into those aspects and therefore, for these reasons, the learned Judge had dismissed the said writ petition through the impugned order.

6. We have heard Mr.P.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.J.C.Durairaj, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

7.1. Mr.P.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that, mainly, the Writ Court has been swayed by the stand taken by the learned Government Advocate who appeared before the Writ Court, stating that, as has been referred in paragraph 4 of the impugned order that, no adverse orders have been passed against the appellant/writ petitioner and only a direction was given to the second respondent to conduct an enquiry in respect of the fabricated certificate. Such being the position, the appellant/writ petitioner could very well put forth her case or submit her explanation before the Enquiry Officer to be appointed and the appellant/writ petitioner had approached the Writ Court at premature stage